Proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. must strictly adhere to procedural mandates regarding notice and evidence; furthermore, such proceedings are inappropriate when civil litigation concerning the same property is already pending before a competent civil court.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J.

1. By virtue of this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been, invoked by the petitioner, for setting aside the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, hereinafter being referred to as impugned order. The impugned order is a common order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, hereinafter being referred as ‘revisional court’, with regard to three revision petitions.

2. In nut-shell the background of the case is that, that with regard to dispute qua possession of the property in dispute, the proceedings under Section 145 /146 Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter being referred to as Cr.P.C. were taken up and in the above-mentioned proceedings the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala passed the orders dated 02.06.2021 and 04.10.2021. The above-mentioned orders were challenged by virtue of above mentioned two petitions.

3. In addition to above as the second complaint was filed by the police on 06.12.2023, with regard to the same property, the third revision petition was filed.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a grave error of judgment has been committed by the learned ‘revisional court’ when without looking into the factual matrix of the case, and without appreciating the relevant law, the above-mentioned revision petitions have been allowed and the order dated 02.06.2021 and 04.10.2021 have been set aside. According to learned counsel for the petitioner it was well within the competence and jurisdiction of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to record a satisfaction with regard to delivery of possession to a party, who was in possession of the property in dispute on the date of filling of complaint by the SHO concerned. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the above mentioned jurisdiction was exercised, judiciously, by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the possession of the property was rightly delivered to the petitioner, on being satisfied that she was in possession of the disputed property on the date when the complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated.

6. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises the learned ‘revisional court’ has set aside the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, which needs interference and indulgence, by exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner where the protection of property can be ordered by the Civil Court, provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. In support of above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another’ 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 614.

7. The above-mentioned arguments have been controverted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the moot question to be determined in the present petition is the legality of impugned order passed by the learned ‘revisional court’. According to learned counsel for the respondent No.2 if the impugned order is tested on the touch scale of bare statutory p